|
I wonder if they've ever done much dungeon crawling... you're trying to rest? okay... random X monsters wander in, tough luck.
Oh screaming horrors at night, no spells re-learned if you failed your save... oh melee? you just get a -2 to everything...
In the terms of things like PFS, yeah it's not quite as much a issue because of how the structure of the play is. But in campaigns, APs, home games, etc... being able to constantly chug away regardless of your spells per day etc, is an amazing thing.
And even in PFS, I constantly run out of spells
A full attack at lvl 20 from a fighter is a powerful thing and does a great amount of damage and it does more than a full attack option from a lvl 1.
I don't think anyone's disputing this. On the other hand, from levels 1-5 a fighter can move, attack an enemy and do as much damage as possible. They don't need to full attack to have their optimal damage output.
Once they get their iteratives, it means they need to full attack. They no longer get to move, or their damage is suddenly a lot closer back to how it was from levels 1-5. And yes, I know it will still be higher through strength bonus, weapon training, and better items, obviously. But at level 20, when you have the opportunity to get many attacks off in a full attack, being limited to only one if you need to go even the slightest distance is a big difference.
And they have answers for that, ALA quick runners shirt, Vital strike to make the charge more worthwhile, etc.
You can pick any of those spells but which ones are prepared that'll actually affect anything in this zomg way you're suggesting.
The discussion of DPR is sensical, because it's the only way things DIE. the save or die spells are in general not effective, and they usually target critters strongest save.
Um... where on earth are you getting all this from?
A shirt that lets you effectively pounce once a day (or once per encounter, if you want to be silly with it), if your GM rules that that's an alright way to do it (and the thread about Quick runner's shirt shows that several people do not think it is meant to work that way). And yes, getting to turn that 1d8+20 into 4d8+20 is definitely comparable to getting four chances to hit, each of them doing that 1d8+20 if they do.
Obviously, a wizard needs to have spells prepared. I don't know where you got the impression I'm saying a wizard gets to just press a win button in combat, but please don't put words in my mouth or imply that I said something that I did not. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to figure that a wizard has prepared some spells in a day since that's what they do.
As for save or die spells being ineffective... what? They're called Save or Die (and Save or Suck, for the less potent version), for a reason. If they succeed, the enemy is effectively crippled, or just dead. And saying that they generally target a creature's strongest save... you realize that there are different spells that target different saves, I hope?
Seriously... not to sound like a jerk, but I'm not sure how you came up with all this.
|
|
Lets look at the spells you provided in that list that will in fact cause someone to die instantly.
Suffocation, Spell resistance, (20% chance of not getting this on a best cast scenario, 45% in worst case)
Fortitude save, if this is a caster, great, the spell however only lasts three rounds, and requires three rounds to actually kill. If they make their first save nothing happens, if they make their second or third save they avoid being actually killed. What's the save we might ask? assuming greater spell focus in necromancy, and very high attributes we can say the spell dc is a 24? 25? Dragons at cr 11 (that lvl) are rocking a +14 fortitude, retrievers (spiders at cr 11) are walking with a +7, but it's a construct so doesn't breathe. Hezrou are walking with a +16 fort and a SR 22.
so we're looking at even with the lowest fort save it's going to make at least one, if not two or more. And if that one save happens to be the first, great nothing.
This is why save or suck just aren't that well used.
Phantasmal killer, (terrible to use) gets a will save to disbelieve it first, then if it doesn't has to make a fort save. It doesn't matter what monster you pick, nearly all will have one of these as a very strong save.
This is why save or die spells are ineffective, the odds of them doing their job is incredibly small.
IF a wizard prepares say "suffocation" and then finds himself fighting golemns, he's effectively doing nothing with those spells he has prepared, so he makes a variety of spells unless he knows what's going to happen in advance (and we rarely do) and hope we're not neutered by it. Due to this save or die spells are ineffective.
The best use of a wizard is to add utility to the party, and control the field for the melees to rock at. These save or die spells you point at, just aren't that effective compared to making a fighter incredibly effective.
...And I'm still not really talking about how effective these spells are. Again, I didn't point to save or die spells in the slightest, and I'm not sure where you got that impression. I picked a handful of spells as an example of what could be done.
The point is about action economy and what it takes for wizards or any spellcaster to use those actions, whether they be save or die, buff, debuff, battlefield control, or what have you. Aside from touch spells, by that level their shortest range spells are going to 50 ft. and a lot of them are going to be much farther. And they also get to move, and then cast a spell for the round. Whatever spell they have that's going to be most effective. And it'll only be 1 standard action. That's how a wizard is most effective.
Contrast: How is a fighter most effective in combat? By full attacking. But that means they don't get to move, and unless an enemy is right next to them, they need to move in order to attack. If the enemies aren't crowding around them, they may need to be moving all combat long, and the thing that they are most useful in doing doesn't get used whatsoever.
That's the point I'm making. So, I don't see any reason to crunch numbers on those save or die spells that 'I pointed at,' because they're not particularly relevant.
Edit: ...This sounds rather snippy, huh? Sorry. Not trying to argue, but the main problem, imo, is not whether spells are effective compared to melee, it's whether or not a class can do what the class is designed to do. It's quite possible, and I might even say likely, that a melee class can spend a whole combat without doing the main thing they want to do.
|
|
Again, I didn't point to save or die spells in the slightest, and I'm not sure where you got that impression. I picked a handful of spells as an example of what could be done.I think it's when you said things like
the wizard can rip the air out of an opponent's lungs with Suffocationor
I realize that wizards are not often used as blasters, so discussions of the DPR of any particular spell against a fighter seems kind of nonsensical.OR
They're called Save or Die (and Save or Suck, for the less potent version), for a reason. If they succeed, the enemy is effectively crippled, or just dead. And saying that they generally target a creature's strongest save... you realize that there are different spells that target different saves, I hope?
Your pointing to the save or die as their potency, then you aren't somehow? You're confusing at the least, if not confused yourself.
So do you think a wizard is less effective when he casts a full round spell?
What about when he's out of spells, or out of spells that matter and does nothing, does his standard action spell casting ability make him more effective?
Range, in dungeons it's pretty much moot. Also at higher levels the range is required, because anything can smear him pretty quickly. Also, for all your bemoaning not being able to full attack, you can STILL full attack with a bow at range every turn... so how's it different from a wizard?
stuff about SoD's
Yeah. I pointed to one save or die spell, out of the 6 that I mentioned, and you latched on to that like it was the whole basis of my argument. The second quote has absolutely nothing to do with save or dies, it's about casting in general for buff/debuff/control or whatever (SoD's admittedly being included as a whatever), and your third quote is from me responding to you about save or dies. You're the one who keeps focusing on these.
So do you think a wizard is less effective when he casts a full round spell?
Are you just trying to twist my words for no reason or something? Again, that's completely irrelevant. What I do think is that a fighter is less effective when he isn't full attacking. Are you disputing that?
What about when he's out of spells, or out of spells that matter and does nothing, does his standard action spell casting ability make him more effective?
Wow, a class that's based on resources is not as effective when out of resources. I'm glad you can point that out to me.
Also, for all your bemoaning not being able to full attack, you can STILL full attack with a bow at range every turn... so how's it different from a wizard?
You're right, if every martial character only used bows, ever, then there would be no need for pounce in the game at all. But... that's not the case, is it?
Alright, this sounds like it's just going in circles. I don't honestly know what you want me to say, since you don't seem to be interested in what I'm trying to explain.
So... okay.
|
|
So since you've already stated that dmg isn't good coming from a wizard, and that the save or die isn't the point, we're left with debuffing, which guess what, doesn't make the wizard awesome, it makes the fighter awesome!
The whole point of this is that stome claimed that fighters are meaningless, that casters end the day with their spells.
Now through the course of this "twisting of words" I've got you to effectively point out that Save or Die and Damage spells are either a waste of resources, ineffective, or the same or less damage than a fighter or not applicable to the situation.
You've basically confirmed what most wizard optimization guides will tell you, and that's that the control/buffing/debuffing/utility is the strength of wizards.
The goal of the OP and much of your arguing is to bring the power of melee's in line with casters. When it comes to killing things, it already is. As you've now shown, and I've been leading you there, is that casters are generally not killing things as they are making it incredibly easy for the fighter to kill things or to keep people from getting killed etc...
The power of the caster is generally not to kill, but to control and let the fighter clean up.
Pounce isn't necessary for melee fighters to be effective. Your argument in support of the other posters comment that they become less effective as they level is clearly incorrect and illformed. The argument that they have to spend a full round action to do more damage than they can with a standard action, and thus scale less than a wizard is of course silly as well. Their single attack damage is CONSTANTLY going up as they level, there is no backslide, and while it's not exponential growth like wizards are, it's constant growth and consistent damage for everything.
Alright, this sounds like it's just going in circles.
So... okay.
|
|
So you want to argue that their spells are zomg amazing, then ignore your own points against that being true? k... no wonder you think you're going in circles, you're just trying to argue against anything that counters this idea.
Lets look at some strengths the fighter has that the caster doesn't...
Can actually do something with Attacks of opportunity, can actually take a hit, can consistently and nearly always do damage, and is effective even in areas where magic doesn't work, survives low levels with ease.
You're really still putting words into my mouth? I never said that in the first place, and now you're saying I'm contradicting myself?
My last post was to acknowledge that I read your reply. I still disagree, and I still think you're arguing a completely different point, which is why I just repeated the fact that we're going in circles on this.
I don't know if you're just skimming my posts, but it really kind of seems like it. You can keep talking about whatever you want to talk about, but since it seems you're not really listening to what I'm saying, I just don't see much reason for me to continue posting on this.
So... yeah. *shrug*
|
|
Darkwolf, I think you're just ignoring the points you want. you've defended the argument that fighters get weaker as they level, with the argument that wizards can kill instantly with a standard action, or do more damage with a standard action.
The argument is this "fighters do their max damage up until lvl 6 with a standard action, then to do max damage they require a full attack, Wizards only spend a standard and they keep doing more and more"
What this comment you've been defending completely ignores is that a lvl 1 fighter to do max damage is using full attack do dual wield if they aren't two hand fighting.
That a fighter using a standard action at lvl 20 is doing way more damage than a lvl 1.
I'm not talking my own points, I'm addressing the statement you're defending of "fighters get worse as they level" and your defense in particular of how "powerful and deadly" the wizard spells are, when in fact the strength of the wizard is letting the fighter do its thing without hindrance. If you want to always do full attacks every time, throw in some barbarian for pounce, or go archer so you can always full attack if you have LoS. Giving pounce out to a class that already has double the feats any other class has nearly, is not really a solution and just removes uniqueness of the classes that do get it.
|
|
yeap wind chime, but when you look at those abilities at lvl 20, there's SR, there's Resists, etc. going against the sorcerer (and limited spells known) those +5 weapons are just flat out ignoring all but x/- dr. And even that the fighter is often ignoring 10 of it.
your standard action damage fighter is doing great damage on his charge, and the turn after he's going up a very large notch.
I won't disagree that the casters can do some pretty balling things, that doesn't make the fighter some how impotent and needing pounce just handed to them to make the world happy.
Take your example of 60-80 dmg... that's not even including if it's enlarged, and other buffs that they can get from other items and spells cast on them. But I digress, it's clear that the damage.
The fighter is pretty much auto-hitting at that point with charges and never runs out of them. It's a far cry from the "fighters get progressively weaker" argument. And while the spells are spectacular, you yourself pointed out in the time stop issue of buffing party and making the enemy defensless, which lets the fighter clean up further.
There is no point comparing the fighter to the caster and then arguing that the fighter needs free feats, or access to other classes features. It's like watching the outfielders suddenly decide they should be pitchers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I'm out. I just want to play a guy with massive thews.